FY 2000 proposal 20007
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 20007 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Acquire and Conserve Priority Bull Trout Habitat in Trestle Creek Watershed |
| Proposal ID | 20007 |
| Organization | River Network |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Hugh Zackheim |
| Mailing address | River Network, 44 N. Last Chance Gulch Helena, MT 59601 |
| Phone / email | 4064424777 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Inter-Mountain / Pend Oreille |
| Short description | Purchase conservation easements and/or fee interests on 800 acres of private land in the watershed of Trestle Creek, a crucial bull trout spawning and rearing stream in the Lake Pend Oreille Basin, Bonner County, Idaho |
| Target species | Bull trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2000 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | 1/6 time of River Network's Northern Rockies Office director | $8,500 |
| Fringe | calculated at 22% | $1,870 |
| Supplies | $0 | |
| Capital | Purchase of land and conservation easements | $250,000 |
| Travel | $3,000 | |
| Subcontractor | Property appraisals | $10,000 |
| Subcontractor | Land ownership research & mapping | $3,000 |
| $276,370 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $276,370 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $276,370 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| National Fish & Wildlife Foundation | Capital funds for land/ easement acquisitions (requested) | $100,000 | unknown |
| Washington Water Power | Capital funds for land/ easement acquisitions (to be requested) | $100,000 | unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: There are strong indications of landowner interest in participating in a program of conservation acquisitions (some fee and some easement). However, participation will be on a willing-seller basis, so conservation acreage targets might not be achieved.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund (high priority). OK for duration of project through FY2001 as proposed.Comments: This is a proposal to acquire, either through purchase or conservation easements, private lands in the lower reaches of Trestle Creek and to conserve high quality habitat for bull trout, mainly using passive restoration. This project directly addresses the major threats to bull trout in the drainage, which are disruptions of normal ecological processes in the lower drainage by residential development. This project proposal addresses enhancement of an important population of a native species that is clearly in trouble. The project will acquire critical habitat to protect it against the effects of residential development. The review team was particularly impressed with the inclusion of information regarding the probability of success for the project.
The proposal itself was of high quality. The proposal references the FWP measure and two other plans: a watershed assessment and a bull trout conservation plan. The project is important for purchase of easements or title to lands near the mouth of Trestle Creek to ensure continued bull trout conservation (adfluvial bull trout use this creek extensively). There is excellent cost sharing (about half) and excellent background narrative, showing good planning efforts and problem definition. There is a good rationale (to sustain habitat and populations, rather than rehabilitation after degradation). Objectives and methods are straightforward, logical, and reciprocally related. Monitoring will be by IDFG. The project is the result of good regional planning and cooperative efforts by agencies and other organizations. This proposal addresses the ISRP's FY99 recommendation regarding habitat restoration projects. This is a good example of a habitat protection proposal.
Comment:
Comment:
Screening Criteria: yesTechnical Criteria: yes
Programmatic Criteria: no-It is a disproportionate (3 to 1) ratio between BPA and AVISTA funding request. This would be a great habitat purchase for AVISTA.
Milestone Criteria: no- There are no milestones listed.
General Comments:
Technically Sound? Yes
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Project success depends on unsecured non-BPA funds.Comment:
Rank Comments: This important project would protect high quality bull trout habitat. Trestle Creek is a priority area for bull trout and thus the project offers benefits beyond the site for this migratory species.Comment:
This important project would protect high quality bull trout habitat. Trestle Creek is a priority area for bull trout and thus the project offers benefits beyond the site for this migratory species.Comment:
[Decision made in 2-2-00 Council Meeting];